4.7 Article

A Case for Motor Network Contributions to Schizophrenia Symptoms: Evidence From Resting-State Connectivity

期刊

HUMAN BRAIN MAPPING
卷 38, 期 9, 页码 4535-4545

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/hbm.23680

关键词

resting-state connectivity; motor; cerebellum; schizophrenia; negative symptoms

资金

  1. NIMH [1U01MH097435]
  2. Centre for Biomedical Research Excellence [5P20RR021938]
  3. NIH [P20GM103472]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Though schizophrenia (SCZ) is classically defined based on positive symptoms and the negative symptoms of the disease prove to be debilitating for many patients, motor deficits are often present as well. A growing literature highlights the importance of motor systems and networks in the disease, and it may be the case that dysfunction in motor networks relates to the pathophysiology and etiology of SCZ. To test this and build upon recent work in SCZ and in at-risk populations, we investigated cortical and cerebellar motor functional networks at rest in SCZ and controls using publically available data. We analyzed data from 82 patients and 88 controls. We found key group differences in resting-state connectivity patterns that highlight dysfunction in motor circuits and also implicate the thalamus. Furthermore, we demonstrated that in SCZ, these resting-state networks are related to both positive and negative symptom severity. Though the ventral prefrontal cortex and corticostriatal pathways more broadly have been implicated in negative symptom severity, here we extend these findings to include motor-striatal connections, as increased connectivity between the primary motor cortex and basal ganglia was associated with more severe negative symptoms. Together, these findings implicate motor networks in the symptomatology of psychosis, and we speculate that these networks may be contributing to the etiology of the disease. Overt motor deficits in SCZ may signal underlying network dysfunction that contributes to the overall disease state. (C) 2017 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据